And that doesn’t even include the constant indoctrination promoting abnormal marriage, otherwise known as gay “marriage” – as well as the use of children as social experiments forced to be raised in a homosexual environment.

In one recent episode of The New Normal, the two gay men considered adopting a little girl in addition to having a baby via a surrogate mother.  This was portrayed oh so nobly as the gay characters stated:  “We’ll be giving two loving parents to someone who really, really needs them.” 

However, as National Organization for Marriage states on their website:  “Two men might each be a good father, but neither can be a mom. The ideal for children is the love of their own mom and dad. No same-sex couple can provide that.”

Take Action!  Click here to send a message to the corporations empowering the damaging themes of “The New Normal.” (See below for the list of advertisers who will receive your message.)

And, as a Christian Post article entitled “Kids Need Both Mom and Dad, Says Gay Man Opposed to Gay Marriage,” states:

The benefits of intact biological families were emphasized on a “Building a MarriageCulture” panel at the National Review Institute’s 2013 Summit, “The Future of Conservatism.” One of the panelists, Doug Mainwaring, spoke of his personal experience as a gay man who came to realize that his own children need both a mother and a father.

“For a long time I thought, if I could just find the right partner, we could raise my kids together, but it became increasingly apparent to me, even if I found somebody else exactly like me, who loved my kids as much as I do, there would still be a gaping hole in their lives because they need a mom,” Mainwaring, co-founder of National Capital Tea Party Patriots, said.  …

“I don’t want to see children being engineered for same-sex couples where there is either a mom missing or a dad missing,” Mainwaring explained. “Somebody needs to stand up for the rights and needs of children in an age when the selfishness of adults seems to be trumping those rights.”

Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/kids-need-both-mom-and-dad-says-gay-man-opposed-to-gay-marriage-89018/#VSS9oiKo1fVMS2Tq.99

Take Action!  Click here to send a message to the corporations empowering the damaging themes of “The New Normal.” 

Sponsors of this week’s episode, who will receive an email when you submit the ‘take action’ letter above, include:

McDonald’s; Ford; Kraft cheese; AT&T; Subway restaurants; Disney Pictures; Mazda; V-8 juice (Campbell’s); All laundry detergent (Unilever);  Chevy (General Motors); Windows 8 (Microsoft); Focus Films; Summit Entertainment; as well as local advertisers Charter Communications and Baker College.

http://www.americandecency.org/full_article.php?article_no=1762

Elliott Gould and Martin Short have joined John Mulaney‘s comedy pilot loosely based on the comedian’s life. Gould will play the gay neighbor. While I’m excited to have a gay elder on television, this production is from Lorne Michaels of Saturday Night Live, so I don’t have high hopes for how they’ll handle it.

The Mexican Supreme Court has ruled that homophobic language isn’t protected under freedom of expressions.

NSFW, naked, gay German snowboarder? Sure, why not?

Masturbation is good for you. It reduces the risk of cancer, helps with erections generally, ups your immunity, and generally helps your mood. Now if you need me, I’ll just be over here in the corner, being healthy.

Native American tribe Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians has passed marriage equality, becoming the third tribe to do so, after the measure failed by a single vote last year.

How to break the ice with Mean Gays. Personally, it sounds like a lot of work to talk to people I probably won’t like.

Kevin Connolly has joined Friends With Better Lives, starring opposite James Van Der Beek as a fellow gynecologist. I’ve always had the weirdest crush on Connolly, even though he’s not one of my normal types.

For Colored Boys Who Have Considered Suicide When the Rainbow Is Not Enough is a finalist for the 25th Annual Lambda Literary Awards.

Disney has unveiled the first image of their Shanghai resort, promising it to be uniquely Disney, but also uniquely Chinese. I’ve been to China but never made it to Shanghai. I always wanted to visit the modern, towering city.

The National Organization for Marriage‘s Jennifer Morse will not be apologizing for exploiting the death of Tyler Clementi to advocate against gay rights. “”The media and activists groups are mischaracterizing my remarks, in which I urged students to befriend gay students, and also urged them all to adhere to the traditional standards of sexual morality. I believe that engaging in uncommitted sex hurts people of both genders and all sexual orientations. I would be happy to meet with Tyler Clementi’s mom and dad to try to move forward and go beyond the highly charged rhetoric that doesn’t help anyone. I don’t think the Clementis know me or what I believe or think or said.”

You can win a chance to visit the set of Modern Family while supporting the Tie the Knot Foundation, with a visit taking place in August or September when they start filming the next season.

Hawaii has passed the Steven Tyler Act, making it a crime to photograph celebrities during private or intimate moments. They can agree on this, but not marriage equality?

Jesse Tyler Ferguson and Justin Mikita are busy planning their wedding, and joke that they have high hopes for the ceremony. They’d love to have Beyonce perform, with Pink doing an aerial act. Michael Urie suggested they have a naked man ice sculpture.

Joe Dallesandro was a model and actor popularized by Andy Warhol. The images of him in this post by Buzzfeed are NSFW, but are hauntingly beautiful.

Let’s be honest for a minute. Studies show that 50% of gay men are barebacking these days. It’s a fact. So what’s going on? Buzzfeed’s Kyle Bella talks about why he does it despite knowing better, the anxiety it causes him when he goes to get tested, and the fact that he knows he’ll do it again. So why can’t gay men talk about it without finger pointing and name calling?  Says Bella: “Why is not an easy question, but it’s the only way we’re going to really feel comfortable talking about our desires. And if, as studies are starting to show, roughly half of all gay men bareback at some point, is it really that reckless? Are men who engage in barebacking sex really self-destructive, uneducated, or unfamiliar with the risk? I don’t think so, but the shame that stands between us and a candid conversation about bareback sex is perhaps as dangerous as the virus itself. I’ll probably bareback again, though I don’t know when or with whom. It is against my better judgment to take this risk, when the virus, even if I don’t have it personally, has invaded my vision of the world. But my desire doesn’t necessarily operate logically.”

I just want to say thank you Kyle, for asking the question honestly. Trying to start a dialog doesn’t’ mean you deserve the comments you got.

Entertainment Weekly has Behind the Candelabra on the cover this week, and from Matt Damon getting his cheeks spray tanned in his garage for the pool scenes to the many, many sex scenes, not much was held back. “The scene where I’m behind him and going at him, we did that in one take. We do it. Cut. There’s a long pause. And then you just hear Steven go, “Well… I have no notes.’”

Dolly Parton is jealous of that many rhinestones

 MacKayla approves of VHelton

 Why didn’t Colton Haynes ever hover over Danny’s abs like he is this guy?

 Chord Overstreet and Blake Jenner holding hands

 Terrance Spencer and Adam Lambert prove guys sometimes go to the bathroom together

 Suburgatory is done filming for the season – is this the last of Ryan Shea?

TV Guide noted that the men on shows on The CW love to bare their abs (why else do people watch?), and asked Stephen Amell if he could identify his network mates just by their abs. How does he do?

We showed you the new domestic Iron Man 3 trailer yesterday, but the new international trailer has a touch of new footage, particularly of Tony Stark. How do we feel about this third film? I’m not sure it looks nearly as fun as the first one.

I’m not entirely sure that I want to try this with my Dyson vacuum, but it’s good to know I have options if I’m trapped in my home office and can’t get to the fire extiguisher in the kitchen.

Do you know there are people out there that actually study rock skipping for a living? I used to love skipping rocks as a kid, but was never any good at it. I suppose I should have insisted that my parents buy me that t-shirt cannon for my 9th birthday.

Epic is another one of those “hidden tiny protectors” movies that seem to come out every ten years or so. This one, like just about everything else these days, does seem a little darker though.

Evidently cats can see the rotating snake illusion, and find it just as confounding as humans. Which begs the question of who can paint my house in this pattern to help protect me from the cat army?

via AfterElton.com http://www.afterelton.com/2013/03/modern-family-contest-chord-overstreet-blake-jenner-hold-hands

Related articles

• Elliott Gould & Martin Short To Co-Star In NBC’s John Mulaney Comedy Pilot (m.deadline.com)
• Elliott Gould & Martin Short To Co-Star In NBC’s John Mulaney Comedy Pilot (deadline.com)
• Tyler Clementi’s parents call for apology from anti-gay marriage group that invoked son’s suicide in speech (nj.com)
• Kevin Connolly Joins ‘Friends With Better Lives’ Alongside James Van Der Beek, And More Pilot News (huffingtonpost.com)
• Christian group offers to meet with Tyler Clementi’s parents after controversial comments (nj.com)

The groups Freedom to Marry and Third Way released a report showing that 97 percent of pro-gay marriage legislators who were up for reelection in 2012 won their seats again. That’s compared to just 90 percent of all incumbent state legislators up for reelection last year.

They also found that 85 percent of Republican legislators who voted for marriage equality since 2010 did not lose their seats because of it.

Evan Wolfson is the founder and president of Freedom to Marry. He tells OutQ News the report refutes claims that voting for marriage equality can threaten legislator’s jobs.

WOLFSON: It doesn’t hurt elected officials to take a stand and rise to fairness, but in fact it actually helps them. It actually really generates support.

The National Organization for Marriage otherwise known as NOM, has been a vocal and leading opponent to same sex marriage throughout the United States ever since the fight for marriage equality took to the courts and ballots. Throughout this fight, NOM has usually come out on top and won the voters opinion to their favor. However, during this recent Presidential election, NOM has lost all four of their fights for inequality.

Some would argue it’s their message that is becoming archaic and out of touch with the average American, while others would say they are being outspent by their opponents along with not getting their message to their base.

NOM has had a history of boycotting companies that support marriage equality or even when those companies support non-discrimination legislation or civil unions. This now puts the organization in a conundrum since last week  dozens of companies such as Apple, Morgan Stanley, Twitter, Facebook, etc. urged the Supreme Court to legalize same-sex marriage throughout the country. Their reasoning is this inequality in 41 states damages workplace morale and deters business. Along with these companies making a profound statement, about 200 additional companies have filed a separate case with the Supreme Court against the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which denies legally recognized married same-sex couples a plethora of benefits from the Federal government that heterosexual couples are allotted.

Earlier last year, NOM declared a boycott of Starbucks as a result of their support for the marriage equality bill in Washington. Their boycott failed miserably and their message fell flat.  I know wonder how they will abide by their own puritanical standards. Will they boycott Apple, Facebook, Twitter and various other media tools and services? How will they deliver their aging and out of touch message to the American public if they hope to continue their ill-fated fight against equality? I assume they’ll continue to use their Apple computer, spew their bigotry via Facebook and Twitter, and will conveniently  forget their previous boycotts and continue their deceiving battle. Soon NOM will be left with using the more “traditional” forms of media; pens, ink, carrier pigeons as companies continue to progress along with the country.

Clementi, 18, jumped to his death off the George Washington Bridge in September 2010 after his roommate at Rutgers University videotaped his sexual encounter with another man.

In a Feb. 17 speech to Iowa State University students, Jennifer Morse, president of the National Organization for Marriage’s Ruth Institute Project, said: “That kid Tyler Clementi who killed himself, who threw himself off the George Washington Bridge?… There was a much older man in the picture. There’s usually more to the story, right? And so I think friendship is what you have to offer. There are a lot of situations where people are doing something sexual that’s probably not the best thing for them, and that would be better if they had somebody who would be friends with them without coming onto them, or without judging them, and that kind of stuff.”

Morse went on to say gay rights activists are the wrong people to help what she called “confused” young people.

“When you really get down to it, a lot of the young people are confused and quite lonely, and need help and support, and they’re getting help and support not from the Christian community. They’re getting help and support from the gay activists, who have their own thing that they’re doing, which is not necessarily to help the individuals, but they’ve got some sort of political visions,” she said.

Morse advised the Iowa University students to “be friends with people… and give them some support for sexual restraint, for example, which they might not get from anybody else,” adding that people with “gender confusion” might be under pressure to become sexually active “even in situations that aren’t going to be good for them.”

But Morse discouraged “advocating abstinence, because it seems like you’re on the soapbox, and they’re down here.”

In a news release Monday, Clementi’s parents accused Morse and her organization of exploiting their son’s name.

“To exploit our late son’s name to advance an anti-equality agenda is offensive and wrong,” Tyler Clementi’s parents, Joe and Jane Clementi, said in the news release. “By doing so, the National Organization for Marriage proves that not only is there no low they will not sink to, to advance their cruel agenda — but that neither they nor Ms. Morse have any grip on reality. The very idea that Tyler’s tragedy happened because of too much support — instead of not enough — is ludicrous. Shame on them.”

Multiple gay rights groups likewise denounced Morse’s remarks in the release. Herndon Graddick, president of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, accused the National Organization for Marriage of “using Tyler’s story to pit young people against their own peers,” while Human Rights Coalition vice president of communications Fred Sainz urged the group to “do the right thing and immediately apologize to the Clementi family.”

The Ruth Institute that Morse heads up says on its own website that its mission is focused on “making marriage cool,” and passing on values such as “Marriage as the proper context for sex and child rearing, “respect for the contributions of men to the family,” and “marriage as a lifelong commitment between one man and one woman.”

The larger National Organization for Marriage was founded in 2007, in what it called “response to the growing need for an organized opposition to same-sex marriage in state legislatures.”

Clementi was just weeks into his first year at Rutgers at the time of his suicide.

His roommate at the time, Dharun Ravi, served less than a month in jail after he was convicted last year of 15 criminal counts, including invasion of privacy and bias intimidation. He is appealing his conviction.

Last month, U.S. Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.) reintroduced federal anti-bullying legislation invoking Clementi’s name. The Tyler Clementi Higher Education Anti-Harassment Act would require all colleges and universities that receive federal student aid to have in place anti-harassment policies

Holt reintroduced the measure last week after it failed to pass in the last Congress. The same measure was also introduced in the senate by New Jersey’s senior senator Frank Lautenberg.

Also last month, Clementi’s parents helped Rutgers dedicate the Tyler Clementi Center. The center will offer lectures, symposia, and seminars on topics relating to cyberbullying.

What do you think about Morse’s remarks and her mention of Clementi? Please leave your comments below…

In recent history, Nomalanga Mhlauli-Moses wrote a piece dealing with the decline of males seeking marriage. Entitled When Did Black Men Decide Against “Protect, Provide & Please” For Their Women?, it analyzes what has gone grown for many (not all) of the people in our Black communities. Noting issues with Black male incarceration, lack of beliefs in the viabilities of relationships, and monetary concerns, Nomalanga noted that many males are not opting to become husbands and providers. What happens is this: single parent homes become the normalcy, and expectation, for plenty of us. Understandably, this article is nothing short of observatory greatness.

This is Nomalanga. And yes, her article is great. Press the link above to read it.

The only issue with the article doesn’t deal with the contents in themselves. It actually deals with not understanding how men and marriage work together.

Chocolate covered lie: there isn’t one. I just feel the need to address the situation from a male point of view. Maybe it is for a better understanding (if anything).

The Ball and Chain Awaits

You know the stigma: the “ole ball and chain”. I made reference to it in one of my blogs of the past. For many men, marriage has been considered that time of “less fun and more time in the house”. In actuality, it isn’t quite like that (in all cases). Still, marriage is always going to be a major concern.

They even reference it in ads. Ha!!!!

The funny part: plenty of people believe in marriage. The truth is this: marriage is still respected as an institution among those that are well-to-do [1]. If you see people on TV, divorce is happening left and right. However, if you ask W. Bradford Wilcox, marriage is still a respected institution amongst the rich and wealthy [2]. Thus, you can’t take the Kardashians as the epitome of relationships in today’s day and times.

The problem comes in when we get to the economically depressed and distressed. For those without a college degree, marriage is falling with an increase of divorce and single parent child rearing [3]. The problem is that it causes problems for all involved. Wilcox noted that “boys who are reared outside of marriage are about twice as likely to end up in prison by the time they turn 30” and girls without fathers “are at least twice as likely to end up pregnant, compared with girls raised in intact, married homes with their fathers” [4]. As many people face economic trouble, they face marital demise too.

The Ball and Chain That Isn’t Marriage

What is more damning than anything is the fact that these black males don’t want marriage because they come from a background where marriage isn’t even realistic.

First of all, we have to look deeply into the mind and habits of the “single male”. If a man mentally remains “single”, then he will fail to “settle down” [5]. That is: many (not all) single men don’t fully figure themselves out and take time to do things for success (i.e. strategic planning, living to accumulate wealth, etc.). Adding the fact that many Black males tend to come from situations where their idea of womanhood is gathered from over-dramatized reality shows, shoddy media, and broken homes just don’t help the situation much. Plenty of these brothers would marry but their lives never allowed the idea of marriage to become a serious reality.

Hey, George! Thanks for the words of intelligence.

Nobel Laureate George Akerlof, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, noted “Men settle down when they get married: If they fail to get married, they fail to settle down.”

I agree with that sentiment. Fully and unconditionally.

Get em, girl!!! Make him pay!!!

Let us not forget about the women and what THEY think of marriage today. In a Glamour Magazine from May of 2012, we found this information from a poll they had taken:

• Women think marriage is out, more so than men: 51 percent of women under 30 – and 46% of women overall – say the institution is becoming outdated. Men are more traditional, a full 58% believe the institution is timeless.
• Single is A-OK! Nearly one in three women in our survey says she’d feel fine going through the rest of her life single.
• Divorce? No problem! 59 percent of women say divorce is healthy if two people fall out of love. [6]

So, there are going to be a number of women that don’t even believe in marriage. Weirdly enough, that same poll noted that 91% of those same polled women do want marriage and 87% want it to last forever [7]. With that understood, I believe that people are thinking of marriage in a different form.

The Skinny

I thank Nomalanga for describing the issue between our Black men and marriage. However, I wanted to take a look at the bigger picture. A lot of the problems come from our men. Likewise, there are some things that our women have to consider also. She is still absolutely right with her article: in the end, we need to find the pleasure in marriage. Only then can we finally take bigger steps in healing our community.

‘Nuff said and ‘Nuff respect!!!

Related articles

• Married couples are richer
• America’s Exodus from Marriage
• ASA Amicus Brief Destroys Anti-Marriage Equality Filings
• Same-Sex Couples Not As Healthy As Heterosexual Married Couples
• Divorce – Should I Get Remarried?
• Is Marriage Good For Your Health?
• Behavior More Women Call ‘Cheating’
• (Video) Women’s Rights in Islam: Divorced at 10
• Solution to SBW Crisis: Black Women Should Just Marry Each Other
• Annulment | eLocal

Teaser Photo:

via AfterElton.com http://www.afterelton.com/2013/02/hetereosexual-humans-mars-perez-hilton-morrissey

Related articles

• US: Perez Hilton announces the birth of his first child (musingsofamildmanneredman.com)
• Perez Hilton Is A Dad! (q104.cbslocal.com)
• Op-ed: Love is what makes a family (nbclatino.com)
• Perez Hilton: Baby Brings Joy to Celeb Blogger as He Makes ‘Surprise’ Announcement (celebs.gather.com)

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) – A national anti-gay marriage group has put a bounty on the heads of Minnesota Republicans.

The National Organization for Marriage says it will spend $500,000 to defeat any GOP legislator who votes to legalize gay marriage.

It’s a serious threat, but what does the record actually show?

The National Organization for Marriage posted its half million dollar threat online just a couple of days before a bill to legalize gay marriage is slated to be introduced at the Minnesota Legislature.

But here’s a fact: In the 2012 election, the vast majority of gay marriage voting legislators won.

Sen. Branden Peterson says he isn’t fazed by the warning

“It doesn’t matter whether its five million or 50 million [dollars],” he said. “They might as well spend their money somewhere else, because it’s not going to have an effect.”

The two-term lawmaker from Andover, Minn., is the first Republican to change his vote on legalizing gay marriage. And he may be part of a new, growing GOP movement.

In fact, the gay marriage debate is transforming the political landscape.

In 2001, only 35 percent of Americans supported it. But now, 48 percent of Americans do.

And for Republicans, there’s a generation gap. Only 30 percent of the overall party favors gay marriage; but 70 percent of Republicans under the age of 30 support it.

But that’s not the whole story: The Washington-based Democratic think tank Third Way says 98.5 percent of state legislators who voted for gay marriage were re-elected.

Out of 196 elections in New York and Washington state, only five pro-gay marriage lawmakers lost their seats — four in New York and one in Washington.

And in three of those elections, other factors — like corruption– might have played a bigger factor.

Peterson says he will be a co-author on the gay marriage bill, but he still has some concerns about how the law will work.

Also, he says he wants to make sure Minnesota carves out legal protection for small businesses and conscientious objectors.

Indeed, supporters of legal gay marriage say they expect more Republicans to join them. As for Peterson, he says what’s remarkable is that gay marriage is not that important to many people.

He says Minnesotans are much more worried about state spending, taxes and job creation.

If you’ve been following the decades-long push for equal marital, adoption, and kinship rights for queer families in the US, you’ve probably gotten fairly familiar with one complaint: we shouldn’t redefine family. The question that’s been the heart of the conversation for decades now is whether expanding various familial rights and benefits to queer families will inconvenience the already enfranchised or isn’t a “threatening” change. Apparently we’re only allowed to alter legal norms in this country if there’s no effect?

According to NOM, the way it has always been and will always be, for everyone. From here.

The funny thing is, that when you actually listen to the likes of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), it sounds like they’re the ones who want to radically restructure familial laws and norms. In an interview last week, one of their representatives, Jennifer Roback Morse made it clear that she not only opposes equal marital rights for same-sex or same-gender couples, but sees that as intimately linked to a divine plan. She believes that an “almighty God created our bodies” such that “a man and a woman are supposed to come together in an act of love to produce a new human being”. Any other forms of conception lack such a divine sanction and are apparently distinct from a divine plan which is ”what we’re supposed to do, that’s what we need to do”.

So far, this sounds like par for the course – those opposed to queer families having equal legal rights and social standing frequently mix and match opposition to marriage equality with opposition to various new reproductive technologies that they strongly associate with us. Morse does stay pretty fixed on that mixing of those two issues for the rest of her rant (which literally refers to children conceived with sperm donation as chattel — because she just knows that we’re being mistreated somehow).

Now, the commentary over at the Human Rights Campaign does correctly point out that this advocacy for the banning of assisted reproduction technologies (ARTs) would negatively impact the many male-female couples that intend on using them. Likewise, the idea that their marriages are actually about something else entirely is pretty patently offensive to all of the couples (of whatever gender composition) who neither have kids nor plan on having any but want to marry each other regardless.

There’s also the increasingly overlooked question about why Morse’s specific religious beliefs should be the basis for US law. In short, her presentation of this argument as the basis of an opposition to equal marital rights for queer families implies a reworking of our existing laws and norms regarding gamete donation, the purpose of marriage, and even the separation of church and state.

Beyond that, there’s another set of legal changes that she seems to be alluding to that many activists seem far less willing to overtly point out. One of Morse’s central tenets seems to be that coital conception is “participation in [God's] divine love and in his divine creative power”, which seems to erase the sorts of situations that many conservatives spent the past election pretending didn’t happen. The belief that NOM and similarly-minded entities seem to be pushing is toxic both in how it treats conceptions involving ARTs as innately unethical, but also in how it refuses to acknowledge that some coital conceptions are the result of sexual assault or other situations (that I hope aren’t going to be whitewashed as part of a divine plan).

File photo of Jennifer Roback Morse, from here.

What’s more, there’s a certain way of reading Morse’s statements that effectively calls for recriminalizing homosexuality. Morse not only refers to reproductive, heterosexual sex as “what we’re supposed to do” and “what we need to do” but also “what we want to do” within the context of discussing the human species. Quite literally, queerness, or at least exclusive queerness, is something she views as a deviation from not only divine mandate but also the definition of humanity. That behavior is a counter-indicator of humanness. Within that context, her argument gets quite stark. While discussing the various policies she would like to see in place to prevent the formation of queer families or reduce their social and legal recognition, do Morse and her political allies perceive their struggle as a battle to keep humanity human?

There’s one particular line in her rant that stands out to me each time: “The fact that these two women want to have sex with each other has no bearing whatsoever on whether this should be permitted or not.” The ‘this’ in question was the purchasing of donated sperm, but it seems to me that this sentence communicates its point just as easily whether the permission being extended is for that, or marriage, or even to actually act on desires. It’s an argument — at its core — against the right of queer people and queer families to exist.

The National Organization for Marriage issued the warning Monday. The group previously contributed more than $2 million to last fall’s failed campaign to ban gay marriage in Minnesota constitution.

Bills to legalize gay marriage are likely to be introduced at Minnesota’s Capitol this week.

One Republican senator, Branden Petersen, already says he’ll support it. But the National Organization of Marriage says that’s a “career-ending” vote for Republicans. The group has helped fund conservative primary challengers to Republicans in other states who voted in favor gay marriage.

NOM says it will also financially support Democrats who vote against legalizing gay marriage.

(© Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

HISTORY, LEADERSHIP, AND GOALS

Conservative activist Maggie Gallagher and Princeton professor Robert George launched the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) in 2007. NOM’s mission is to defeat same-sex marriage at the polls, in the legislature, and in the courts, from state to state and across the country. The group functions as an organized infrastructure that coordinates state and federal initiatives into a national movement to ban same-sex marriage.

For its first project, NOM worked in tandem with the Mormon Church to funnel money into California’s Proposition 8 campaign, which led to suspicions that NOM is a front group for the Mormon Church. NOM has since incurred suspicion that it is also a front for the Catholic Church, due to close ties with—and funding from—Catholic groups. Catholic conservative Brian Brown took over as president in 2010 from co-founder Maggie Gallagher, who now serves as president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, a conservative anti-marriage equality think tank.

Gallagher previously worked for other antigay groups such as the Institute for American Values and the Marriage Law Foundation. In her book The Abolition of Marriage, Gallagher equates same-sex marriage with polygamy, stating that “for all its ugly defects, [polygamy] is an attempt to secure stable mother-father families for children… [and] there is no principled reason why you don’t have polygamy if you have gay marriage.” Current board chair Dr. John Eastman, a Chapman University law professor, has vocally defended the Boy Scouts’ antigay discrimination and referred to homosexuality as a form of “barbarism.”

Despite the economic recession, NOM’s revenue increased exponentially in its first few years, starting out with a modest half million dollars in 2007 and rising to $7.4 million in 2009, 14 times its 2007 income. Three-quarters of its 2009 revenue came from 14 big donors (minimum $5000) who together contributed $5.5 million, the largest donor contributing $2.5 million. Thus, a small group of extremely wealthy donors is responsible for NOM’s funding, giving this handful of privileged individuals an exaggerated influence on the same-sex marriage debate and public policy. However, in 2011, after pledging to spend $20 million, NOM’s upward trend in fundraising changed, reporting only $7.2 million in revenue (mostly from two donors), down more than $2 million from 2010.

Flouting financial disclosure laws, NOM fiercely protects the anonymity of its donors and thereby encourages them to continue giving large sums of money. The largest known donor is the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic fraternal society based in New Haven, CT, that contributed $500,000 in 2008 and $1.4 million in 2009. Many suspect that the largest donations are coming from the Mormon and Catholic Churches because of their connections to NOM founders and board members. “You’ve got this really interesting funnel of tax-free money coming from the Dioceses and the Council of Bishops and the Knights of Columbus directly to these campaigns,” noted Phil Attey, executive director of the pro-gay marriage Catholics for Equality.

NOM leaders claim they maintain this secrecy to protect donors from persecution by gay rights supporters. They even use this policy of anonymity as a fundraising tool, with Brian Brown promising prospective donors that their identities will remain secret: “And unlike in California, every dollar you give to NOM’s Northeast Action Plan today is private, with no risk of harassment from gay marriage protesters.” Furthermore, NOM defends its non-disclosure by suing states such as California and Maine, challenging their financial disclosure requirements as unconstitutional. In response to a 2010 ethics investigation from the state of Maine, NOM committed millions for litigation to delay disclosure in the courts as long as possible.

STRATEGIES

One of NOM’s chief strategies involves campaigning for antigay legislators and working to unseat legislators and judges who support marriage equality, particularly Republicans and moderate Democrats who support pro-LGBTQ legislation and court cases. In 2011, it vowed to spend $1 million on these goals in Maryland alone. The group successfully implemented this strategy in 2010 to unseat three State Supreme Court judges in Iowa who ruled in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage in the state. In 2012, the group pledged $100,000 to unseat a fourth Iowan judge who supported marriage equality.

With fiery rhetoric, NOM demonizes so-called “traitors” against marriage through extensive mailings, robo-calls, and e-newsletters. Prone to fear mongering and hyperbole, NOM’s leaders rally their ultra-conservative base to vote the “traitors” out of office and donate to anti-same-sex marriage candidates. For instance, in a July 2011 newsletter, NOM president Brian Brown declared that with Senate hearings on repealing DOMA, “President Obama and the hard-left core of the Democratic Party in Washington declared war on marriage, on federalism, on democracy and on religious liberty.” NOM wields hyperbolic rhetoric to distort the pro-same-sex marriage campaign into an all-out war on traditional American principles. Framing same-sex marriage as an insidious threat to such universally accepted American values, it galvanizes its target audience and makes it difficult for supporters of equality to argue against them. With their seemingly innocuous claim that they are “protecting families,” NOM’s leaders hope to confound and silence opponents.

Another fear mongering argument that NOM employs is the notion that redefining marriage would result in religious persecution by the government. Its leaders argue that such “persecution” would include: forcing pro-gay views on children in public schools, forcing churches to perform same-sex marriages, and denying tax breaks to religious institutions that fail to recognize same-sex marriage. For instance, Maggie Gallagher has argued that she and Robert George founded NOM because “if nothing changes, state legislatures are going to begin to pass laws to redefine marriage and…our churches, charities, schools and other organizations were going to be persecuted by state governments as a result.”

In March 2012, LGBTQ advocates got a detailed look into NOM’s campaigning and messaging strategies following a lawsuit related to the group’s Maine activities. Documents from the case reveal NOM’s efforts to develop anti-LGBTQ media to directly appeal to racial minorities, using it to drive a “wedge between blacks and gays.” At the end of August 2012, NOM launched a radio ad campaign in swing state North Carolina’s Raleigh media market, home to 40 percent of the state’s African-American population. The advertisement features Dr. Patrick Wooden, a prominent African-American pastor, and urges listeners to say “no more” to President Barack Obama based on his endorsement of marriage equality. The same documents showed that NOM hoped to inflame tensions among those in the African-American community who take issue with equating LGBTQ equality with civil rights, and to target the Latino community by making support for “traditional marriage” a “key badge of Latino culture” and recruiting “glamorous” Latino spokespeople to help further the cause.

In the summer and fall of 2010, NOM sponsored two bus tours to promote its anti-LGBTQ message, which generated little publicity and small turnouts. Undeterred, the group embarked on another bus tour in August 2011, aiming to sway Iowan voters to select an anti-gay marriage presidential candidate. On the state level, NOM also promotes ballot initiatives to ban gay marriage, heavily funding referendums such as California’s Prop 8 and Maine’s Question 1. In states such as New York that lack a ballot initiative procedure, NOM focuses on lobbying legislators to oppose gay marriage through laws or constitutional amendments. The group spent $2 million to target three Republicans in the New York State Senate who voted in June of 2011 to legalize marriage rights for LGBTQ couples, helping to defeat one in a GOP primary. Another Republican who voted for the measure, Jim Alesi, opted not to seek a ninth term in the State Senate, fearing intense negative campaigning on the part of NOM and its allies.

This profile is the first in a series on key anti-LGBTQ opponents adapted from Political Research Associates’ Resisting the Rainbow report, with research from PRA’s 2012 The Right’s Marriage Message. Particular thanks also to Human Rights Campaign’s NOM Exposed project.

I have been a Superman fan since 1990 and have had a few issues with how DC Comics has handled its best known property, but this is, for me, a slap in the face.  When I first heard of Card’s views on gays, I decided from that moment that I would not support any work of Card’s.  It is true that the man is entitled to his opinion when it comes to the issue of gay rights and it is also true that he probably is able to separate those views from his fiction writings but the money he makes off those writings goes toward NOM and whatever other hate groups that Card donates money to.

I’m not saying that DC Comics should prevent Card from writing Superman, but I will not buy a Superman story written by Orson Scott Card.

CONTACT: Nathan Tabak, 347-633-5221, nathan@rennacommunications.com

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AT THE BALLOT BOX: NEW REPORT FINDS RIGHT’S CHANGED MESSAGING LED TO 2012 VICTORIES FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY ADVOCATES

SOMERVILLE, MA – February 4, 2013 – For over a decade and a half, same-sex marriage advocates experienced a long and almost unbroken series of defeats at the ballot box, including the passage of California’s Proposition 8 in 2008, Maine’s Question 1 a year later, and an anti-gay constitutional amendment in North Carolina in spring 2012. But in fall 2012, things changed. Not only did Minnesota voters defeat a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, but majorities in Maine, Maryland, and Washington voted to legalize marriage for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) citizens. What changed? A new report from Political Research Associates (PRA), The Right’s Marriage Message: Talking Tolerance, Marketing Inequality, reveals the impact of the Right’s changed messaging: same-sex marriage opponents shifted away from what had proven successful in previous campaigns, even as marriage advocates learned from previous failures.

Report author David Dodge, equality activist and researcher, writes: “While this election will likely be looked back upon as a turning point for the marriage equality movement, it is important to remember that none of these victories were won in a landslide. NOM and its right-wing affiliates will not concede future battles simply because they are unaccustomed to electoral defeat. Rather, these groups will learn from their mistakes in order to prepare for future campaigns, several of which are just around the corner in states including Indiana and Oregon.”

Among the findings:

●        Same-sex marriage opponents downplayed “harm to kids” messaging this election cycle. In 2008, one of the Yes on 8 campaign’s most controversial — and successful — ads was the “Princes” ad, featuring a young daughter expressing excitement over learning in school that she can marry a “princess” someday, to her mother’s shock and dismay. In fall 2012, fewer than half featured “harm to kids” messaging, and often as only a side note to the main theme. In contrast, during California’s 2008 campaign and Maine’s Question 1 campaign in 2009, nearly every anti-LGBTQ advertisement warned voters that legalizing same-sex marriage would force public schools to discuss LGBTQ relationships and sexual behavior with children.

·         Instead, a popular theme was the “victims” argument — that same-sex marriage would effectively strip citizens of the right to act according to their religious beliefs. For example, an ad by Protect Marriage Maine featured a couple, Jim and Mary O’Reilly, claiming that they were barred from holding weddings at their inn as a consequence of marriage equality: “A lesbian couple sued us for not supporting their gay wedding because of our Christian beliefs. We had to pay thirty thousand dollars and can no longer host any weddings at our inn.” In fact, the wedding “ban” was voluntary on their part, and resulted from existing state nondiscrimination laws.

●        National Organization for Marriage’s (NOM) strategy to use same-sex marriage as a “wedge” issue between the African American and LGBTQ communities failed. As revealed in internal documents, NOM had sought to “find, equip, energize and connect African American spokespeople for marriage… [and] provoke the gay marriage base into responding by denouncing these spokesmen and women as bigots.” Yet come Election Day, Maryland exit polls showed African Americans – who comprise 30 percent of that state’s population — supported same-sex marriage by 46 percent. Moreover, according to national exit polls, African Americans supported their state legalizing same-sex marriage by 51 percent, compared to 47 percent of whites.

●        In 2012, pro-LGBTQ advocates largely abandoned the “rights-based” and “avoidance-based” themes, which had deliberately deemphasized LGBTQ couples, in favor of one that is strongly pro-LGBTQ. They stressed how LGBTQ couples and their families are affected due to their inability to marry — on an emotional level. Encouragingly, this more resonant, LGBTQ-inclusive messaging strategy was dominant in all four states facing ballot measures in 2012

●        Same-sex marriage supporters had several broader advantages which they lacked in previous campaigns, including: the endorsement by a sitting U.S. President, and the support of three of the four governors whose states had referenda on the ballot; a notable silence from high-level political voices on the Right; and improved fieldwork.

Said Malika Redmond, Lead Gender Justice Researcher at PRA: “Looking back at the political messaging strategies of the Right in ballot struggles from 1998 to today, Dodge debunks the notion that the Right wins only by speaking to its base. On the contrary, he finds the Right is quite savvy in creating messages that work for a range of audiences, and that in 2012 it left one of its most effective claims—that LGBTQ people somehow pose a threat to children—by the wayside. Despite the wins, Dodge cautions us to remain vigilant of the ways in which the agile opposition may regroup and retool their messaging for future battles in less hospitable states.”

About Political Research Associates

Political Research Associates (PRA) is a social justice think tank devoted to supporting progressive movements by providing investigative research and expert analysis on the U.S right-wing. We expose movements, institutions, and ideologies that undermine human and civil rights, focusing on issues including reproductive justice, LGBTQ rights, immigrant and racial justice, economic justice, and civil liberties. For more information, visit http://www.politicalresearch.org.

God is Watching

By Nicole Nichols

I’ll bet you didn’t know that when you cast your vote in November you were being tested! And, I’ll lay another wager that you had no idea that God was the proctor of that test! How many of you went to the polls realizing that you were under such divine scrutiny?

Prior to the election, Dominionist Pastor Harry Jackson was making predictions that black and Hispanic Christians would vote for Romney over Obama because of Obama’s stands on abortion and same-sex marriage. He asserted that re-election of President Obama would bring “divine judgment upon America,” and that God was already hard at work trying to remove anyone who favors same sex marriage from office.

Gee, I thought that God was all-powerful and that if he wanted something like that done he could do so with a nod of the head! My bad. Little did I realize that he would have to tax himself to accomplish such a feat. At any rate, if Jackson is correct, God really didn’t do so well this time around.

So now what? I mean, African Americans and Hispanics voted and President Obama was given another shot at running the United States of America. The sky didn’t fall, and the Rapture didn’t come. The Mayan Calendar ended in a whimper and the mighty right-wing zealots are still licking their wounds.

Well, Jackson has somewhat of an apocalyptic view. He now believes that God has redirected his focus from those in office to the voters who just didn’t see things his way. Now God is going to “take out” those who voted for Obama as well as those who “don’t care about homosexual marriage.” He says that God doesn’t like the fact that voters chose “race over grace.”

Jackson serves as Senior Pastor at Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, Maryland. He is also a regional bishop in the Fellowship of International Churches. He founded and chairs the High Impact Leadership Coalition which is comprised of a group of ministers who oppose abortion and same-sex marriage.

Believing that President Obama is in a “committed relationship” with black voters, Jackson has claimed that relationship has become an “adulterous” one.

Jackson: “The black community is in an adulterous relationship with President Obama,” Jackson said. “He is asking us to stray from the most basic tenets of Scripture – that marriage is an institution made by God for man and woman to become one and procreate. He’s telling us it’s fine to hold onto our beliefs but that it’s also okay to accept his stance on a position that goes against that core belief.”

“This is no different than a married person having a relationship with someone other than their spouse,” said Jackson.

In actuality, Jackson is nothing more than a water boy for the Family Research Council and the National Organization For Marriage. He doesn’t see that because his ego is too fragile. NOM bought him for 20 thousand a year and whenever they need to appeal to the black community, guess who they parade out?  This tactic is certainly nothing new. However, it is demeaning both to Jackson and the black community.

While relaying his predictions on Trinity Broadcasting Network, he stepped into applauding the notion of the Seven Mountains Mandate, which advocates dominion over the seven areas of culture in our society, claiming that Christians will prevail and “replace Obama’s False Church.”

Jackson is but one of many who have been duped and bamboozled into doing the dirty work of the religious right. Much like the drug lords who send children into their gutter to deliver their wares, so as not to get their hands dirty or attract too much attention, the dominionist cult is not much different. When there is a job to do that might end badly, or might garner negative attention they rely on their lackeys to deliver. They truly are master manipulators.

This, however, doesn’t absolve Rev. Harry Jackson. Jackson is an educated man. But, like so many, his ego can be appealed to and stroked enough to make him believe that he truly is somebody who is valued. Just as there are millions of mainstream Christians sitting in the pews of steeple jacked churches across this country every Sunday never realizing that their minds are being warped with the dogma of a cult and by a malevolently twisted cult leader.

Read more

Of course though there’s the usual misleadingly titled “family” groups doing all they can to staunch support for the bill through any means possible – Family First New Zealand leader Bob McCoskrie is trying to make hay out of anything he can find to peddle the same rubbishy Christian persecution stories popular among religious right groups in the US and across the Tasman. There’s a fairly good reason for doing this – because twisting reality by posing as the victim when they’re very much the aggressor is a frustratingly effective tactic, and because it gives them a reprieve from actually having to present even one logical and consistent argument against marriage equality.

McCoskrie’s latest victim of bullying and intimidation by the pink jackbooted homosexual thugs is Grace Carroll, an 18 year old Catholic woman who was invited to give an oral submission at the select committee looking into the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill, who he says was humiliated and disrespected and whose views were called homophobic by members of the select committee. McCoskrie has already put out the call in an email to supporters seeking out more tales of persecution.

Click to embiggen.

Family First NZ has helpfully posted Carroll’s account of what happened, and she is exactly as spiteful, sanctimonious and judgemental as you’d expect. I’m posting here some of the more laughable and melodramatic quotes from her complaint. She paints a pretty harrowing picture – you’d think that she was recounting some horrid Guantanamo Bay-esque ordeal. What’s she’s upset about is having people roll their eyes at her alarmist, rubbish arguments, and trying to use her religion as the pretext for why gay couples should be treated as second class under New Zealand law.

I eagerly accepted the offer to present an oral submission. Extended research shed further light on the Bill, completing my argument. The list of detrimental implications grew. But I was driven. And though I felt uneasy and unwilling to continue at times, the critical nature of what this Bill proposes outweighs any sense of the enormous task ahead.

How absolutely, positively courageous! And she’s totally not just a junior bigot because she used extended research to complete her argument. What research was that, exactly? Most of it came from a website run by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (not especially regarded, I would argue, as a scientific institution), as well as work by Jennifer Roback Morse, a paid employee of the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage who has publicly stated that homosexuality is a “completely shameless activity”, that marriage equality advocates are trying to force a “hostile take-over of civil society”, that marriage equality as akin to slavery and Nazi Germany, and dismissed the need for gay rights because “there is no future in sodomy.” But yeah: Research!

Complaining that the panel included four MPs who were in favour of marriage equality and only two against, Carroll describes the favourable treatment afforded to a lesbian couple and the father of a gay daughter and others making submissions in favour of the bill. She notes that two gay men made reference to their families (“though their families didn’t actually appear to be present”, she snidely remarks), and uses scare quotes to ridicule the notion that LGBT people suffer homophobic abuse and discrimination, further heaping scorn on the notion that a discussion about the definition of marriage might include mentions of – sneer – “love.“

My submission time of 10 minutes was in stark contrast. My name was called and as I walked to the table, the Chairman greeted  me  frostily, rather flippantly, and the atmosphere completely changed. The heavy air was charged with emotion and I am still astounded that I managed to walk towards that table and chair despite apphrehension and feeling sick at heart at my different treatment and the apparent hostility.

Gay people in New Zealand were routinely brutalised and criminalised until very recently (homosexuality was still considered a crime in NZ until 1986 after multiple legislative efforts to change the law),  and the Catholic Church, to which Carroll belongs, did nothing to change it. But, yeah, I bet they were never “greeted frostily” or ever felt “hostility” while this was going on.

My submission opening  sentence “The Marriage Amendment Bill is illogical” was greeted with the Chairman’s incredulous shout of “Pardon!?” followed by a brief, awkward silence that prompted me to repeat it. Proceeding to read my  carefully prepared oral submission, I was aware of intense animosity by pro-­Bill members of the committee towards me – through their facial expressions and body language.

Facial expressions and body language – the very worst kind of persecution, for sure. But it gets worse.

After a mere 30 seconds or so into my submission, Chairman Chris Auchinvole MP – who’d minutes earlier ingratiatingly welcomed the previous 18 year old female ­got up, pointedly turned his back towards me, walked to the  tea trolley at  the back wall near his seat, and made a great show of preparing himself a hot drink and rummaging for food. This lasted for over three minutes, half of my speaking time.

Yet I continued.

MP Moana Mackey rolled her eyes and pulled faces during my commentary on democracy, when addressing concerns of the need for virtue, and points about righteous discrimination.

Yet I continued.

Personally unaware, but recounted by my mother, spectators loudly fidgeted in their seats, loudly whispered, sniggered, rustled papers and loudly blew their noses while I spoke, a stark contrast to the intense, respectful silence given to previous pro­-Bill submitters. The Chairman did nothing.

At the conclusion of her submission, she says, the ensuing silence was deafening. At this point I can hear Mrs Cross, my Year 12 English teacher in my head, warning the class to avoid using cliches in our narrative assignments.

Then MP Kevin Hague addressed me in an insolent, contemptuous tone, “I think you know who I am Grace” and proceeded  with a personal individual question of “what harm would it do to you personally if I married my partner, Grace?” Pausing to think, I replied that it was a matter of perspective and of the wider consequence. Interrupting me in mid-sentence he stated, “I think you’re saying that homosexuality is wrong”. “I think you are homophobic”. I responded by stating, “No, I believe in the dignity of everyone and respect all individuals”. Kevin Hague replied, “No, I think you are” in an unsavoury and menacing manner. I ended the conversation with a final “No I am not”.

She’s not homophobic, she just happens to think that Kevin Hague and others would devalue marriage if they were able to get married, and as she says in her submission, that gay marriage is a threat to families and society. How rude of the panel to roll their eyes at such a judgement-laden bit of slander which has no relevance whatsoever to the actual bill being discussed. MP Moana Mackey rightly pointed out that nothing in her submission contained a single argument as to why secular law should treat gay people differently.

Dazed, I returned to my chair to briefly collect myself, and couldn’t remain in the room any longer.

Outside, the entirety of the proceedings started to sink in, and I felt humiliated, disappointed and frustrated at my treatment by these supposedly professional Members of Parliament who could not even give me common courtesy or respect. MPs who think that democracy, virtue, morals and the majority have – in the words of MP Moana Mackey – got ”nothing to do with this Bill” or, seemingly, their jobs.

What an incredibly arrogant and offensive thing to say, especially coming from someone demanding to be treated with respect and civility. I really do wonder how this woman is able to square in her mind the notion that gay marriage will destroy democracy, virtue and morals, and that this is a respectful and civil way to talk about people. In one sense I feel bad making fun of her – but then, she’s not 12 years old or one of those poor kids from that Kansas fag-hating religious cult, she’s an 18 year old woman making a statement to a parliamentary select committee. She’s clearly spent a lifetime being fed some ridiculous nonsense by her parents and her church, but there’s an expiry date on blaming your parents for your behaviour. If anyone used that kind of language to talk about any other group – black people, Jewish people, left-handed people – they’d get booted straight away, and they’d absolutely deserve it.

She closes her pathetic whinge by chiding the LGBT community and its advocates for seeking equality and rights but not showing respect for her views, and quoting – of all people – the civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr, apparently without any sense of irony or self-awareness. Because being systematically oppressed and treated as a second class citizen is exactly the same as not being able to force your religion on gay people, right Grace?

Finally, she leaves us with this stirring last statement.

I felt sick at heart. But I have never been afraid. I am never afraid. To speak the truth.

Powerful. And chilling. And not at all completely bullshit and thoroughly refuted by the people there. There’s no doubt this is something that she’ll likely wind up being pretty embarrassed about when she’s a little older and wiser and when gay people have been afforded full legal equality – what a shame these silly words, for years to come, will likely end up being the first result when people Google her name.

RELATED: Not surprising that the opposition to gay marriage in New Zealand is probably just as hysterical and absurd as their Australian counterparts. Earlier this month, Sensible Sentencing Trust leader Garth McVicar put forward a submission arguing that gay marriage would lead to higher crime rates in NZ, eliciting many LOLs on both sides of the Tasman and beyond. And look, the Australian Christian Lobby’s Lyle Shelton is already trying to pimp Grace Carroll as a victim of aggressive, intolerant homosexual activism.

18 yr old supporter of marriage humiliated, intimidated & called homophobic by NZ MPs wanting to redefine marriage protectmarriage.org.nz/archives/mps-a…

— Lyle Shelton (@LyleShelton) January 27, 2013